Why do we have to differentiate between women’s history and history in general? After all, history represents all humankind, doesn’t it?
Such is la question du jour this month in some corners — the blogosphere, especially.
Women are still underrepresented in history books — the majority is the minority in this case. Yet, there are many stories about women who changed the course of history, from Dr. Mae Jemison to Indira Gandhi to Amelia Earhart to Rosa Parks. And many more.
At my son’s school, where I volunteer from time to time, I see little to no recognition of the month’s existence. Or women in history.
I see no evidence that names like Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, or Sally Rides have influenced institutions and businesses to honor women and our work — with equality. While women are represented in just about every field and industry, very few occupy important roles. The positions that matter.
In the U.S. House of Representatives, women hold 78 of 435 seats. Good number, but is it enough?
For this reason, one must be forgiven for wondering: Since we insist on having a Women’s History Month, is it effective?
Molly Murphy MacGregor, co-founder of NWHP, wrote: “…in the 1980s, kids could not identify Sojourner Truth or Susan B. Anthony or Rosa Parks. That has changed. The change is not where we want it to be, but where we are going …”
What do you think? Are we moving at a snail’s pace when it comes to factual equality? Is the cry for equality just noise?
Image: women in history educational assembly program, mobileedproductions.com